MANORANJAN AICH Vs. KAUSHALYA GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed for challenging the order under Annexure-6 and award dated 08.10.2013 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Keonjhar in PLA Case No.19 of 2013. The impugned award has been passed basing on a claim by the opposite party. The claim of the opposite party before the Permanent Lok Adalat is that during the life time of her son namely Chandrasekhar Giri he had opened an account under the scheme of Sahara Rajat Yojna, Sahara India, Keonjhar Branch, vide Account No. 1849206139 on 31.03.2004 and deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- appearing at copy of master opening form under Annexure-8 in lump sum under the Sahara Rajat Yojna with option (C) of Column 18 to avail accidental death benefit. The claimant alleged before the Permanent Lok Adalat that in spite of her repeated claim/request to the Sahara India Ltd. to pay the compensation on account of accidental death of hear deceased son namely Chandrasekhar Giri, the present petitioner did not pay any heed to her requests. The Permanent Lok Adalat in PLA Case No. 19 of 2013 concluded the proceeding giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides and the award was passed under Annexure-6 by the Permanent Lok Adalat holding the present petitioners liable to pay the accidental death benefit and directing thereby for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the opposite party along with interest @6% within a period of one month from the date of order. By assailing the said award the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the particular project was insured with the Insurance Company which is not made a party. The responsibility for payment of awarded amount to the claimant should have been rather fixed on the Insurance Company. The insurance is a contract in between the opposite party and the Insurance Company and the claimant has nothing to do there. The petitioners' submission that unless the Insurance Company is made a party, it is unable to release the amount is not sustainable.

(2.) Since the contract in relation to the insurance policy is in between the opposite party and the Insurance Company whether the Insurance Company is made a party or not is immaterial. I do not find any impropriety in the order passed in the award under Annexure-6. There is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Investment in the particular scheme is by way of contract in between the petitioners and the opposite party, therefore, the present petitioners are bound by the terms in the said contract and it cannot avoid for payment under any circumstance. However, it is open for the petitioners to get the paid amount reimbursed from the Insurance Company by making proper application.

(3.) During course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claimant is not the nominee in the concerned policy for which she is not entitled to the particular benefit. There is no dispute that the nominee is also dead in the meanwhile. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners since the nominee is also dead, legal heirs of the original depositor is also entitled to the money under the. So I direct that the awarded amount be released in favour of the legal heirs of the certificate holder within a period of one month, subject to the production of a legal heir certificate before the Authority.